True, ultimately they get fired for lack of wins. If enough plays dont work well enough they dont win enough.

And, Im full agreement that we as fans dont know/understand enough about why or why not plays are called or not called. Some of it SEEMS pretty obvious to us at times, but in reality, anything we see or think we see, you can bet an NFL coach sees as well. Only he sees a lot more along with it.

On top of that, we have no idea when a play is audibled out of.

It is really easy for me to say it is a bad call if it doesn't work. But it was called for a reason. Does the team know something about a formation that tips them to try something? I submit that they usually do.

For instance Carr's INT of Big Ben. He knew Haley likes to make that throw against Safety over the top. Carr picking it off doesn't mean Haley made a bad play call. It means Carr read it, and gambled. If he misses that pass Pittsburgh scores possibly because no one was behind the WR when Carr laid out.

I think pretty much what you have to realize is Tony Romo should now be 4-0 in December this year. He threw for 400+ yards, and 4 TDs with no interceptions.

It wasn't good enough to win, but I'm not going to blame that on my OC (head coach). Garrett has made plenty of mistakes and questionable decisions in the recent past, but not this month. He has put this team in a position to win, barring mistakes and failure to execute. That is his job and that's all he can do.

It'd be nice to have the mentality that we're just going to do what we want to do, and force the defense to stop it. Truth is, we're not good enough up front to do that. We have to try to outwit the defense. Sometimes the defense wins. Again, if we execute, it's not an issue.

The problem is, people think it's as simple as "if it works, it's a good play...if it doesn't than it isn't, and anything else would have worked better." I don't pretend to understand everything that goes into a play call, and without the value of all-22 and experience in breaking down plays, then it's presumptous to think you know why a play didn't work. Was it a bad play, a bad call, or did one person fail to execute, and the play failed? A lot of people act like they know more than they really do.

Truth is if were not good up front to block then why run it? Why not stay with what was working when we scored? Why did Garrett have to change up by playing more conservative rather than going for the jugular? There is a reason why we can score so easily in the waning moments while our offense is bogged down during the entire game. The reason is play caling. Garrett needs to call plays that suits the skillset of the team. Stop enforcing these plays that doesn't need to be called. Let Romo win the game for us. Without Garrett calling the plays, our offense would be so much better.

If the defense was truly back on its heels, then a run should have worked just fine. Even if it didn't, it's still 2nd and 10, which gives you chances to go right back to Witten and Dez, which they did. The pass to Witten was completed for about 5 yards. The pass to Dez wasn't. Don't act like one play that didn't work killed the drive. Even pass happy teams like NE, GB, and NO mix in runs when they have momentum.
Not a fan of his at all and we desperately need a replacement.

We had the defense at their heels. Garrett did not need to run the ball or throw quick outs to Witten. Heck he could even have gone deep which would have at least picked up the first down. Like I mentioned, those calls were Garrett playing it conservative again. That cost us the game.

First off, I'm not really what you'd call a Jason Garrett fan. I'm still not completely sold on him...

But there was nothing wrong with the gameplan against the Saints. Jason Garrett didn't fumble near our own goal line, or jump offsides on 4th down. I don't think Garrett calls the defense either.

How about that poor offensive play calling before the half to allow Drew Brees enough time to slice us up a bit more for 3 points to take the lead before half.

We went from 10-0 to 10-13 because suddenly we went 1 dimensional on offense and forgot they were controlling the clock. Barely any rush attempts, barely any high percetage quick outs, screens or tosses.

Run right or left, stop us and we're gonna pass intermediate. You stop that we're going to be in 3rd and 10 and try to convert a 1st down. We don't convert, then we commit another 3 and out on offense that uses up less than 1 minute on the clock.

You can't learn that in the Ivy leagues. You learn that in Pop Warner +. If you learn how to win games of course and can think about all facets of your team. Offense, defense and ST's, not just offense.

I haven't even read this thread, but you have got to be kidding me!!! Besides the fact that the defense let the Saints offense control the clock & convert 3rd down after 3rd down, the plays were there to be made on the offensive side of the ball, on drives where Miles drops a pass that would've resulted in a 1st down in Saints territory, Murray drops a pass where if he catches it, he is probably able to turn up field for the yard to get beyond the sticks.. + Murray putting the ball on the ground.. Sorry man, I can't blame Garrett for that

It's not really that fine a line. You can see when the execution is not what it's supposed to be. You can't necessarily tell what play was called or where a call breaks down.

Lazyking;4920996 said:

A lot of it is playcalling. Take the third down slant play in OT in the saints game. Garrett has called that play alot on third down to get a first. Teams have caught on. Sure, some of the execution can play a part but when teams know what you're gonna call in certain situations, its your own fault when it doesn't work out..

How did I know the first example of a play calling limitation would actually be an execution limitation? This is the problem with blaming the call without the proper context or without knowing what the receiver is actually supposed to do in a given situation.

I see an inspired team with a whole lot more attitude and fight than any team we've had since the nineties. I see signs of a team that is beginning to believe in itself and that it can win against anyone and has no quit in them whatsoever.

While it may not yet have shown up in the win/loss column, it is still very difficult not to notice it....and we want to pull the rug out from under them?

These players do not give up no matter how bad the cards they are dealt. This is something that even the great Bill Parcells could not seem to foster in any of the Cowboy teams he coached. In fact it was the other way around when he was here. Players may have responded well to him at first but then declined each year after. Same thing happened to Wade Frillups, big first year and then downhill.

I believe it would be a huge mistake to not give Garrett the opportunity to finish what he seems to have started here. He's building a team that gives a crap.!

It's not really that fine a line. You can see when the execution is not what it's supposed to be. You can't necessarily tell what play was called or where a call breaks down.

How did I know the first example of a play calling limitation would actually be an execution limitation? This is the problem with blaming the call without the proper context or without knowing what the receiver is actually supposed to do in a given situation.

If the defense was truly back on its heels, then a run should have worked just fine. Even if it didn't, it's still 2nd and 10, which gives you chances to go right back to Witten and Dez, which they did. The pass to Witten was completed for about 5 yards. The pass to Dez wasn't. Don't act like one play that didn't work killed the drive. Even pass happy teams like NE, GB, and NO mix in runs when they have momentum.
Not a fan of his at all and we desperately need a replacement.

Yeah I agree, I'm not a big garrett fan but I didn't have a problem with the run call. It was the start of the OT and time wasn't a factor so the run should have caught them off guard, it just didn't work.

I see an inspired team with a whole lot more attitude and fight than any team we've had since the nineties. I see signs of a team that is beginning to believe in itself and that it can win against anyone and has no quit in them whatsoever.

While it may not yet have shown up in the win/loss column, it is still very difficult not to notice it....and we want to pull the rug out from under them?

These players do not give up no matter how bad the cards they are dealt. This is something that even the great Bill Parcells could not seem to foster in any of the Cowboy teams he coached. In fact it was the other way around when he was here. Players may have responded well to him at first but then declined each year after. Same thing happened to Wade Frillups, big first year and then downhill.

I believe it would be a huge mistake to not give Garrett the opportunity to finish what he seems to have started here. He's building a team that gives a crap.!

Thank for actually responding to the post. I do like the attitude of the team something that Dallas hasnt had since Jimmy days. But i dont think that enough. This isnt the Bengals or the dolphins. The cowboys should be about more than moral victories. More then just a attitude.

Seems the scouts have done their work and focused alot of more than just talent. Murray, Carter, Lee, Mo and even Dez provide a great future for Dallas. Without it seems the baggage. Dez had some early trouble but has seemed to turn the page in the maturity department.

I just think the bar should be higher than what Garrett has done. I really think he shouldnt be calling plays because basically he isnt very good at it. And i just wish he would swallow his pride and let Callahan do that job. For somebody who hasnt accomplished anything worth bragging about in his entire coaching career really shouldnt have a ego this big.

I simply do not agree with most fans on play calling. I don't believe any of us have any idea why a play is called, and the assignment of each guy on the field at the time. Maybe couchscout does when he has a specific assignment; but the rest of us have no clue and we base it strictly on if it worked or not. Notice I am including myself in that cabal.

I'll leave it at that because I know me saying that we as fans have no clue why plays are called usually upsets someone.

I agree, there's so much more that goes into a play than any of us care to know. With my limited technical knowledge of play design, who am I to judge what kind of pass play should be called. The things that I can judge is clock management situations, going for it on 4th or not, and whether to attempt a field goal or punt. Those things or sort of generic throughout football but play calling, I try to avoid.

Defense overcomes screen by reading and reacting and stops the play behind the line of scrimmage because of a tell the offense does when they screen.

Is this poor execution, or the OC not understanding the play was blown up because the defense knows the play coming?

Now I'm not big on anecdotal examples, but you have become the master are generalization lately in your quest to be right.

Not sure what you're asking. A play call can be bad because the defense knows it's coming. Is that what you're trying to say?

That wasn't so much the issue with the slant in question, though, since that was a play where Dez paused in the route, resulting in the broken up pass. Or at least that's what I believe happened from looking at the posted vids.

Does that somehow make me a master of generalization? And, really, shouldn't we all be on a quest to be right, Two-deep? I don't see much point in a quest to be wrong, not that I"m judging you or anything.

How about that poor offensive play calling before the half to allow Drew Brees enough time to slice us up a bit more for 3 points to take the lead before half.

We went from 10-0 to 10-13 because suddenly we went 1 dimensional on offense and forgot they were controlling the clock. Barely any rush attempts, barely any high percetage quick outs, screens or tosses.

Run right or left, stop us and we're gonna pass intermediate. You stop that we're going to be in 3rd and 10 and try to convert a 1st down. We don't convert, then we commit another 3 and out on offense that uses up less than 1 minute on the clock.

You can't learn that in the Ivy leagues. You learn that in Pop Warner +. If you learn how to win games of course and can think about all facets of your team. Offense, defense and ST's, not just offense.

If you're going to make an argument, fine. But back it up with facts. Don't just make stuff up to support it.

It was never 10-0. We were up 14-7, and our defense gave up a TD, that allowed NO to tie it. Then, we got the ball at our own 20 with 1:11 to go. Garrett could have gone conservative, try to run it, force NO to use their TO's, and then punt if need be, leaving NO only a few seconds left. Of course, then there would have been the usual suspects saying Garrett was being too soft, not coaching to win, not taking one more shot at a defense against which we had already made two big plays. But Garrett knew we were going to need points if we were going to win.

It's not just about keeping the other team's offense off the field. If you don't score points yourself, it doesn't matter. It's a failed concept.

So Garrett starts the drive by calling a pass, that goes for 7 yards to Witten. 2nd and 3. Then he takes a shot deep left, which falls incomplete. On 3rd down, a slant to Dez, which was open, but Romo missed him. He hits Dez, it's a first down, possibly a big play if he breaks the tackle. So we punt. NO gets it on their own 33, with about 40 seconds left. On the first play, a short pass to Sproles goes for 44 yards because our defense couldn't make a tackle. The defense. Nothing to do with Garrett's play calling. And on that one play, they were in FG range. With a team like NO, keeping the offense off the field is nice, but when you have the ball, you have to try to score, because they don't need a lot of time to score on their own.

There was nothing wrong with the playcalling on that drive. The only reason you (and others) didn't like it, was because of the result. But the offense didn't put the defense in position to give up 10 points at the end of the half. The defense did.

Our oline is barley average. We simply stuggle to run the ball. We are 31st running the ball in the nfl. Demarco Murray provides enough of a threat for defenses to have to account for him. So our offense run alot better when he is there. Our pass blocking is average at best also, getting better but... Romo covers allot for our oline weaknesses. All of this affects Garretts play calling. The RHG has been atricous at times regardless. He refuses to incorporate variations to his base set, with young talent on this team, unless someone gets hurt. Or like with Free it takes 11 weeks of lousy play to finally rotate parnell in and now both are doing well. I think Garrett has earned another year to prove himself. Though he really needs to being in someone to run the offense so he can focus on being a HC.